Site Search Navigation

Search NYTimes.com

Loading...

See next articles

See previous articles

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

To Surge or Not

By The New York Times January 9, 2007 7:19 pmJanuary 9, 2007 7:19 pm

Much has been made in recent weeks of the Bush administration’s use of the term “troop surge,” to describe the option it is considering of sending more troops (say 20,000) into Iraq, presumably for a specified amount of time, with a mission to quell the sectarian violence that everyone agrees has been unrelenting.

Some call it an increase instead of using the White House term, although that is often modified because such a contingent is not expected to contribute to a permanent higher total of American troops there.

Democrats and some anti-war groups reject those terms out-of-hand, preferring in greater numbers to use the word “escalation” for the possible deployment of additional troops to Iraq.

Q: Tony, as you said, a public debate will probably ensue here after the President’s speech —

Mr. Snow: You think?

Q: Yes.

Mr: Snow: Good chance.

Q: And so often in debate, obviously, language is very important. To your mind, is there a difference between an increase in troops, an escalation in troops, a surge in troops? Because in the last 24, 48 hours these words have all started to become weighted.

Mr. Snow: It just started to become weighted? I think a lot of times people are going to try to find a one-word characterization that allows them to make a political point without perhaps diving into the details in trying to give a proper —

Q: Well, what’s the difference between an escalation and a surge?

Mr. Snow: Well, why don’t we talk about characterizations once we have a plan?

Q: Because I think it’s part of a conversation that’s going on right now.

Mr. Snow: I understand that, and, guess what — it’s a conversation, as I’ve said before, that is a bit in a vacuum and I’m not going to get into the business of pre-emptively characterizing something that we have not released in full detail.

Q: But, somehow, “escalation” has become this Democratic word — the Democratic Party language.

Mr. Snow: Well, ask the guys who do their focus groups. They’re going to have an answer for it. Look, the President is talking about a way forward, and rather than getting involved in trying to assess a description of a plan that has yet to be released publicly and, therefore, about which I am not in a position to characterize publicly, it seems a little silly for me to start quibbling about adjectives without discussing what they purportedly describe, don’t you think?

Q: Well, the president apparently told Gordon Smith and others yesterday that the 20,000 troop increase/surge/escalation is part of the deal. So that’s why I’m asking specifically about — we are going to see some kind of increase.

Mr. Snow: Rather than looking for a one-word handle, look at the policy. And, actually, this is your challenge — you guys do words for a living; figure out — rather than trying to ask Democratic or even Republican lawmakers what the proper descriptive term is, you figure it out. I mean, you’re going to have an opportunity —

Q: I’m trying to, but that’s what —

Mr. Snow: Yes, but what you’re doing is you’re listening to what other people are saying and saying, is that the right one? Well, I can’t help you on that.

Q: Yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing —

Mr. Snow: Can’t help you on that one.

Q: I’m listening to other people describe it, and I’m asking the administration, what’s the proper word?

Mr. Snow: I understand. But what we will say is, look at it, then we’ll talk.

Q: Do you have a problem with the word “escalation”?

Mr. Snow: As I said, look at it, we’ll talk.

Now, we realize that was a lengthy excerpt. And we also realize that language can be extremely loaded, and certain terms used by politicians, strategists and others take on lives of their own. When those terms become too closely associated with one side and are rejected by another, we as journalists often eschew such a phrase in search of a more neutral one.

And some just call it as they see it. There were journalists on all sides of the aisle and on the battlefields debating the use of the term “civil war” to describe what’s happened in Iraq, remember?

In this instance, Craig Whitney, The Times’s standards editor, explained the paper’s stance on usage:

A couple of weeks ago, I asked that we avoid the use of the word “surge” to describe an increase, because it seemed like insider jargon, Washingtonspeak or Pentagonspeak. We don’t use “surge” as a transitive verb in any event; troop numbers may surge, but you can’t in proper English “surge” the number of troops.

We’ve been pretty good about using the good old plain-English “increase” to describe what the administration appears about to do with troops in Iraq. If “surge” means “increase and then withdraw,” well, we can say that, too.

On the use of “escalation,” Mr. Whitney, a former Vietnam War correspondent, explained:

“Escalation” was the politically charged word used during the Vietnam War and means more than increasing troop numbers — it means increasing the scale and scope of the war, but there again, the language has straightforward ways of saying these things and we prefer to stick to that.

The war of words and the language of war have always been part of the landscape, political or otherwise.

In another part of the briefing today, Mr. Snow was asked by The Times’s Sheryl Gay Stolberg whether Mr. Bush was actually consulting with Congressional lawmakers. It seems, to many, at least according to some of the senators and representatives who met with him at the White House, that he’d already made up his mind, and was telling them, not asking them, about the “way forward.”

Ms. Stolberg: Seriously — can we talk about this issue of consultation? Is the President really soliciting views, and do these lawmakers — are they having an input into his thinking?

Mr. Snow: Yes, of course. And as I’ve said before, Sheryl, look, the President still has to make choices and he still has to make decisions, and he still has to lay out a proposal with a way forward. On the other hand, he has made it very clear to one and all that he’s interested in hearing from people, he’s interested in ideas, and that will continue.

Q: But the speech is 30 hours away. That’s not that much more time for —

Mr. Snow: I’m not saying that the President is going to go back in and shred it and start over. Again, what I’m saying is the President still continues to have an open mind because this is a way forward. This is not, wave a wand and it’s all going to happen. This is a way of talking about the important business of building capacity on the part of the Iraqis to take care of their own security, and to build a strong, independent democracy that really does, as I said, stand as the definitive refutation of terror; and also the example to other countries in the region that hope freedom and democracy are possible and are things that they all ought to pursue.

The speech is tomorrow night. Much of it was drafted, we were told, over the weekend. Maybe these consultations with lawmakers, in which as Senator Gordon Smith said the president told them about his plan, result not in altering the planned policy announcement, but in Mr. Bush’s choice of words in a sentence or two.

“Surge” is part of the new “Surge and Blast” –as in “Shock and Awe,” simply to make a Tarzan point. The elephant stepped on and blocked the ant hill, now the ants found many more underground exits and climbed all over the elephant…. The elephant thinks that jumping, rolling, and stepping one more time all over the ant hill will shake and scare the ants from all over its musculature, ears and eyes.

Elephant needs to deploy its memory. Get off the anthill!! Now’s the time.
Fz

To be credible at all, Mr. Bush’s AEI plan affirmation speech needs to conclude thusly: “And… in conclusion, to make this policy credible, beyond suspicion and acceptable to the majority of the nation, both I and Mr. Cheney hereby submit our resignations, effective immediately”

While we are at words, how about the incorrect and misleading use of the word “war” to describe the invasion and the subsequent occupation of Iraq? A “war” is BETWEEN foes – not one-sided. Americans might be a bit more uncomfortable with a surge in what is correctly termed our American occupation.

Our enemies label us “occupier”, which everyone knows that we never were and never will be. President wants to send more troop in to help the situation with all the intention to win the war and defeat the enemies. The word “escalation” pretty much labels the President and us as a nation to try to expand the war. How in the world could this be true? The fierce attack by the Democrats is pure politics. Party first, the country second. Don’t tell me that the “People” spoke. I am the people. People don’t want their country men die, tons of money spent. That is understandable. We all want a quick victory. If that doesn’t happen, well, the President be dammed. Remember 911, we as a nation has to do something about it rather than living like a sitting duck. If you don’t like what the President is doing, then help him solve the problems, rather than attacking him. Clinton dodged the problems for years that eventually led to the 911 attack. The fact that we do not have any more attacks is a phenomenal achievement which I highly appreciate. President Bush is a true patriot, whether you like him or not.

The war on terrorism is being fought in Iraq like it or not. We are there…like it or not…we must win the war on terrorism or we will suffer the dire consequences…like it or not.

Wars cannot be directed by a legislator who never served (Ted Kennedy’s one year of a two year hitch as a buck private in Paris doesn’t qualify) and who has never held a job that qualifies him to lead the fight against terror.

We have a President who is charged with the responsibility of leading our military in war. It is all spelled out in the Constitution of the United States.

No fair-minded person believes that George W. Bush wants anything other than having the Iraqi government take over the fight, and to bring our people back home.

Let him do his job and the General’s now want a surge to help complete the mission…Who is Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi to say no?

The word ‘surge’ sounds a lot like ‘splurge’. Would this be the president’s last frantic fling at the blood-stained gambling table? It’s terrible to think that his chips are in fact young American lives.

Pres.Bush Jr. sees himself as theDivine’s spokesman and therefore is immne of all normal, rational means of communication.In Biblical hebrew it is known as “shigaon”.not in the realm of normal behavior or speech.

I strongly believe that there is no need to send more of our troops to Iraq. We must try to bring back our troops from Iraq and let Iraqi take care of their own country.

Firstly, President Bush made a biggest mistake to invade Iraq and remove President Saddam Hussein from the power for his selfish motives, now we are paying the price. President Bush to understand the world is not his private playground to do with as he please and destroy the world in the process of his thrists for money, dominance and power. American people and the world cannot simply accept this.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. He gets imput from the Generals and from his intelligence agencies. No reasonable person thinks that the president wants to stay in Iraq any longer than is needed to hand off to the Iraqis. That decision is his, not Ted Kennedy’s or Nancy Pelosi’s.
If we cannot prevent the Islamofascists from undoing the Government of Iraq than what can we prevent them from doing?
Does any reaasonable person believe that losing there will make us safer here?

This will never be settled on the battle field nor religious Armageddon. Thinking, influential people must rise up now and stop the blood shed. The last election says there is support. Playing with “discriptive words” is nonsense. For the sake of all humanity and this nation’s future, stop the bleeding. Say NO to Bush’s maniacal ambitions.

The 20,000 or so troops–far below any number that could possibly change the situation and most of them already exhaused–will do nothing to help.

At best, Maliki’s Shiite government will use our troops as auxilliaries for Al Sadr’s death squads. We’ll take out the armed Sunnis so that the Shiites can carry on ethnic cleansing with impunity. At worst our troops will be cannon fodder for both sides.

It’s entirely clear that Bush did not listen to anyone except the voices inside his head in formulating this plan. Our only hope–and it’s a slim one–is that Congress will act to curb this reckless and incompetent man who should never have been President in the first place.

Tonight George Bush (I have difficulty referring to him as the President) will announce to the nation his surge plan which will, in effect, condemn another three thousand or so young American men and women to death, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Where help is needed, what is really needed, is s statesman somewhere inside the government bureacracy of this great nation of ours who can stand up and tell George and the rest of our country what everyone else in the world already knows; George, you are nuts. Your imperialistic, constitution-defying, irrational behavior and thinking is simply crazy. I have a test for you, George. Have your daughters enlist in one of the branches of the military service and see that they are placed in harm’s way in the trenches in Iraq and then tell us what you are doing is the right thing for this country and the rest of the world. Put your daughters where your mouth is.

Bush has destroyed the image of the US – or rather we did so by voting for him twice. To start this war with a lie, then constantly change the reasons of this war, then change the approach, to blatantly go against advise of the military, the Iraq Government, etc., etc. makes it clear that we are dealing with a madman. Scary.

I think that it is outrageous that the President can just gallavant and send in an aditional 20,000 or so more soldiers to Iraq; and as previously mentioned condemn another 3,000 American souls. I think that it is time for the Democrats to use their new found power and propose a counter-proposal to what the president has planned; though of course there is a very fine line between what Congress can do and the presidents power as command and chief. And as mentioned before, we cannot simply cut off funding, because if we were to do such a thing, we would simply be condemning more American souls to death. I think that it’s time that President Bush wakes up and smells the coffee; because he is simply being oblivious to what the American people want, and afterall, isn’t he to be carrying out our will as the people? I think so, and being so, he better start listening to the people more often instead of his “high qualified” officials who mainly seem to be able to make such rash decisions in such tense times. The president also, as I have read elsewhere, has the nerve to send out his secretary of state and defence and try and gain international support! How crazy is that! If he cannot gain the consent of his people, how in the world does he expect to gain the consent of foriegn countries?! I hope very much so that the president will be able to live up to the issue at hand.

what fools ye journos be..quibbling over semantics while iraq is burning..the administration has you where they want..indulging in paragraphs of nothingness..diversionary tactics..whats in a word..it means just the same ..a whole lot more of human lives..all for what?..a presidents legacy..i pray these folks accidently deviate into sanity for the sake of innocent lives.

It is pointless to keep killing for a peaceful outcome. Is this about people or the military industry? We keep sending men, money and armored vehicles out there and they keep getting blown to smithereens along with the Iraqi citizens…This entire mess is just getting worse and worse by the day. If being a “patriot” means following someone into hell, than, go buy a dictionary. I prefer people who use historical perspective and the law to make decisions for me and my family. This administration has done neither. They have bent the law, intelligence and the language to suit their agenda. They are just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. These guys have gambled away our security and whatever support the rest of the world was willing to give us and now we are worse than sitting ducks. I hope the Democrats go after this administration at least half as hard as Ken Starr went after the Clintons. Follow the money and let’s see where all this goes.

Regarding butcher-boy Bush, no matter how thin you slice “surge”, it’s still boloney. George suffers from E.DF. He cannot cope with the fact that his daddy had sons. I do hope someone from the Jon Stewart show spots #17’s quip about George wearing his blue SURGE suit this evening! Dynamite!

“Remember 911,…The fact that we do not have any more attacks is a phenomenal achievement which I highly appreciate. President Bush is a true patriot, whether you like him or not.”

While getting ready to post a comment thanking Franz Schnas for having correctly gotten the situation pretty much covered and having given us an explication nicely done, I once again encountered the concept out of the corner of my eye and I can not fail to make some comment about what I quote above.

That is, our having had no more attacks is not much of an achievement as it has nothing to do with the phenomenal 9/11. Wouldn’t that make you wonder why it occurred in 2001?

and/or read David Ray Griffin,co-author of 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out

Lest anyone get too worried by that term “Intellectuals”, have no fear, these guys are ex-CIA men, that is:they are “retired”,and they know a thing or two about investigating the facts. Which really have nothing to do with Clinton letting things get out of hand as if he wasn’t bombing Somalia(matter of record that the Chinese remember quite well)when binLaden decided to cross the Red Sea once again and out of the Mahdi’s Soudan battle-area against the British in the 19th.century. What do you think these kids study in prep-school when binLaden was a boy?

“Wars cannot be directed by a legislator who never served (Ted Kennedy’s one year of a two year hitch as a buck private in Paris doesn’t qualify) and who has never held a job that qualifies him to lead the fight against terror.

When one looks at one NYT’s headline, it said, “Democrats Plan SYMBOLIC Resistance Votes On Ifaq War,” one realizes just how biased, and misleading the news media can be. What that headline attemts to do is lead citizens into thinking that Pelosi and Reid will only symbolically “resist” Bush’s excuse called a “Surge,” which is Bush’s plan to hold on to Iraq’s massive oil reserves, in preparation for US (Mostly Bush, Sr.-owned)oil companies to get the “contracts,” as though there would be any “competition” to “develope” Iraq’s oil industry.

The Iraq Study Group said it all when it talked about “opening up Iraq’s oil reserves to FOREIGN investment and development.” They made it look like they were arguing with Bush, telling him that the war was going badly, etc., etc., and withdraw troops, while telling Bush, unequivocally, that in order to get those damned oil reserves opened up, “ya gotta’ do what ya gotta do.”

We’ve seen these fascist mass murderers “do what they gotta do” for their own profits, for far too long. Democrats need to be far greater than mere symbols of protest. They have to act to stop this march to Armaggedon before it is too late.

….And so, the elephant must get off the ant hill and let the red ants fight the black ants for domination or coexistence… rebuild their hill and ‘in-surge’ on their own. No matter how many times the elephant flattens the surface of the ant hill, underground systemic ‘re-surgence’ will go on.

The key term to grasp is ‘systemic re-surgence.’ As a culture, Iraq will not be placated unless it’s exterminated (Bush’s notion). Iraq must be allowed to rubuild on its own natural, causal, and phenomenological course.

The US’s intervention –surging or not, will always be and extraneous incursion –or occupation, completely alien to the systemic and cultural forces within. The same forces that will balkanize or vulcanize the ancient tribal mix. What does Bush know or care about that?

Let the ants build their hill and they will have no business on the elephant’s skin. This would be the true victory.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…